EMILIA TINOCO Vs. SHASHIKANT NAGUESH GAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original appellant had filed a Suit for eviction of the respondent No. 1 on the ground of personal occupation and non-payment of rent. The appellants case, in brief, is that she is the owner of the suit premises which consists of a godown and the same was rented to the father of the respondent No. 1. The father of the respondent No. 1 had died and the respondent No. 1 stopped making payment of rent from January 1974. The appellants case further is that her son Caetano DSouza had come to Goa for goods from Kenya and wanted to start his own business in the suit premises. On these grounds namely, that the suit premises were required to start business and non-payment of rent, the appellant sent a notice to the respondent No. 1 terminating the tenancy with effect from 30th June, 1976. The notice is dated 29th April, 1976. The respondent No. 1, in his reply dated 4th August, 1976, submitted that his father was tenant of the suit premises, and after him, he had become the, tenant of the same. The allegations relating to non-payment of rent and personal occupation were refuted. The appellant thereafter filed suit for eviction in August. 1976.

(2.) IN the Written Statement filed by the respondent No. 1, an objection was raised that the suit suffers from non-joinder of the necessary parties inasmuch as the suit premises had been rented to the father of the respondent No. 1 and on account of his death in the year 1970, the tenancy rights in respect of the suit premises devolved on the heirs of late Naguesh Gad and, as such, all of them were necessary parties.

(3.) THE suit was instituted under Decree No. 43525 and during the pendency of the suit. Goa, Daman and Diu Rent Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as Rent Act) was extended to the area where the suit premises exists with effect from 23rd December, 1980. After the extension of the said Act, the appellant joined the other heirs of Naguesh Gad as respondents Nos. 2 to 14. Those respondents were added some where in the year 1983, that is to say, after about 7 years of the institution of the suit against the respondent No. 1. The respondents Nos. 2 to 14 raised preliminary objection that in view of the extension of the provisions of the Rent Act, the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. They also alleged that no notice of termination of tenancy was ever served on them and, in the absence of proper notice, the suit was not maintainable.